MANJIT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Manjit Singh challenging the order of his expulsion from the College of Agriculture, Ludhiana, dated 24th December, 1964 passed by Mr. D. Sundaresan, Dean of this College respondent No. 2.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations of the petitioner, after passing the Higher Secondary Examination from the University of Punjab, he joined this College as a first year student in July, 1964. The First Trimaster result of the First Year and Pre -University Classes was announced in the last week of Nov. 1964 and it showed a pass percentage of 12 percent only. As a result, a representation under the signatures of all the 300 students of the 1st Year and Pre University Classes was made to the Vice -Chancellor of the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, and respondent No. 2 praying for a reconsideration of the result, because the teaching arrangements were not efficient and the students were made to suffer unnecessarily. On 7 -12 -1964 all the students of these two Classes went on strike to enforce their demands. The petitioner was one of the members of the action committee consisting of six persons, who had been elected by the students to conduct the strike and negotiate with the authorities. On 8th December, 1964 the authorities revised the result and the pass percentage was raised from 12 to 58 and 65 per cent respectively for the two Classes. On 10th December, 1964 the students withdrew their strike and were assured by the Registrar of the University in the presence of respondent No. 2 that none of the students would be victimised as a consequence of the strike. In spite of this assurance the petitioner received a notice to appear before a committee appointed by respondent No. 2 on 21st December, 1934. The petitioner appeared before the said Committee on the specified date and he was orally asked to answer certain questions. In reply, he admitted having taken part in the strike along with all the other students, but denied having indulged in any acts of violence or breaking of window glasses and furniture or shouting undesirable slogans. The committee neither examined any witnesses in his presence nor confronted him with any material, which might have been in their possession showing his guilt. He was allowed to go after he had answered the few questions that were put to him. After this, on 27th December, 1964, he received the impugned order from respondent Nos. 2. That led to the filing of the present writ petition on 19th March, 1965.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner raised the following two contentions before me: